Standing Committee G

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

David Amess: Order. Before we start our proceedings, I should point out that the Annunciators appear not to be working. That has been reported, and it is hoped that they will operate as soon as possible.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. How will we know what time it is if the Annunciators are not working?

David Amess: I am advised by our ever-efficient Clerk that we shall be guided by the clock behind you, Mr. Wilshire.Clause 37 Development plan

Clause 37 - Development plan

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 363, in
clause 37, page 20, line 14, at beginning insert 'or'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 362, in 
clause 37, page 20, line 14, leave out 'or published'.
 No. 238, in 
clause 37, page 20, line 14, at end insert— 
 '(5A) if to any extent a policy contained in a development plan for an area conflicts with a policy in the regional spatial strategy for the region the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy in the regional spatial strategy'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Good morning Mr. Amess. It is nice to see you back in the Chair, as it is to see the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) back in his place. We extend the usual courtesies to him and hope that his wife is doing well .

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Since so many people are curious to know, I am told that the hon. Member for Ludlow is father to a girl, and I think that congratulations are in order.

David Amess: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept the good wishes of the whole of the Committee.

Matthew Green: Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess. I thank the Committee for its kind thoughts. Yes, we have had a baby girl, and, although she is six weeks premature, she is very healthy, as is my wife. I am delighted, and I thank the Committee for its forbearance.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

David Amess: That is wonderful news, and quite in order.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The whole Committee rejoices in the news, and I hope that mother and daughter will continue to do well.
 We come to part 3. Under the absurdly tight time schedule within which we must debate the Bill, we have debated only four of the 11 clauses in part 1, and only as far as clause 17 of the 36 clauses in part 2. The most important provisions, on which the rest of the Bill stands, are in parts 1 and 2, yet we have debated less than half of those parts. 
 From the number of organisations whose representatives have come to my office, it is becoming quite clear that planning practitioners are increasingly realising that the Bill will bring chaos, delay and uncertainty into the system. Several lawyers left my office last night rubbing their hands with glee, saying that the High Court would be littered with applications for judicial review.

David Amess: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is beginning his speech. However, I remind him of the amendments that he and his hon. Friends have tabled, and ask him, kindly, to draw his remarks very closely to those amendments.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Amendment No. 363 is put into context by the fact that the Bill is very bad and will bring the system into chaos. The clause enshrines some of the Bill's complexity, which we have already discussed. In particular, I refer to clause 2, which is about the local plan process, and which I think is the worst aspect of the Bill. Why on earth must we have the total complexity of local development schemes, local development plans, local development plan documents and local development frameworks enshrined in guidance, when we could have what is in the Welsh part? There is a need for amendments Nos. 363 and 362, and for amendment No. 238, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow.
 In contrast to what I have said, the explanatory notes say: 
''Clause 37 defines the development plan by reference to the simplified hierarchy of plans and documents created by this Bill. It also applies the definition to existing relevant legislation.''
 If the matter is simple, I am a Dutchman, and since I certainly am not a Dutchman, the matter is not simple by any means. I am not alone in saying that: many practitioners think it simple too. 
 Amendment No. 363 would clarify subsection (5), which states that a 
''conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy which is contained in the last document to be adopted, approved or published''.
 That is too restricted, and the clause should refer to ''the last document to be adopted or approved or published''. Otherwise, it implies that only those plans adopted by the local planning authority and approved by the Secretary of State will be considered, and that is far too high a hurdle. The wording will tend to enshrine extreme complexity in the area of conflict resolution, and there will undoubtedly be conflict. 
 The Law Society tells us that the purpose of amendment No. 238 is to provide a means of resolving conflicts between local development plans and regional spatial strategies. It says that subsection 
 (5) provides a procedure for dealing with conflicts between policies in the development plan, but that the clause must also make provision for conflicts between the plan and the regional spatial strategy. 
 Although I understand the Law Society's reasons for probing the subject, I would almost say that the local development scheme should prevail in any conflict with the RSS. After all, it is likely to be far more democratic and acceptable to local people than a spatial strategy for a remote, unknown region. That is particularly true where the strategy is drawn up by a regional chamber composed entirely of indirectly elected members. That would have some democratic legitimacy if and when we got as far as having elected regional assemblies, but I do not believe that most regions will get that far, so strategies will not have that legitimacy. Yet, by and large, regional spatial strategies will take precedence. 
 Conflict resolution is important, and I hope that we shall not need it. If nothing is done about the Bill's complexity, however, I am certain that we shall, so, for goodness' sake, let us get the provisions right.

Matthew Green: One danger of speaking at the tail end of a debate is that the person who moves the amendments may have said everything that one planned to say.
 The Law Society suggested amendment No. 238, which I tabled to probe what the Minister intends to do if there is a conflict between local development plans and regional spatial strategies. I share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who suggested that it would not be clever to give the regional planning body powers over local development plans, particularly if it was not an elected regional assembly. 
 If the Bill does not propose a method for dealing with conflicts, they will end up awaiting resolution on the Secretary of State's desk. Once again, decisions will be made in Westminster when they could have been more appropriately made regionally or, particularly, locally. The amendment is intended to probe the Minister's thinking and to see whether there is a plan for dealing—through regulations or otherwise—with conflicts between local development plans and regional spatial strategies.

Sydney Chapman: My understanding was that amendment No. 363 was consequential on amendment No. 362. In other words, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold sought, for very sound reasons, to delete ''published'', and the wording in subsection (5) would therefore read ''adopted or approved''. Perhaps my hon. Friend can confirm that.
 It may be surprising that I partly disagree with amendment No. 238, of which, as the hon. Member for Ludlow acknowledged, the Law Society is the author. It is logical that if there is conflict between a local development plan and a regional spatial strategy, the latter should take precedence because it is produced by a greater organisation, which is responsible for town and country planning matters 
 and development plans in its region. I strongly believe that directly elected local planning authorities should take precedence over unelected regional bodies unless and until regional assemblies are directly elected. That is crucial. I apologise for repeating it, but I want to take every opportunity to implore the Government to think again and not to activate the parts of the Bill that give powers to regional bodies unless and until the regional bodies are directly elected.

David Wilshire: In my 15 years in the House, I have learned never to tangle with the Clerk's department, but it crosses my mind that it would have been easier for me to explain the two amendments if amendment No. 362 had come before amendment No. 363. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) said, inserting ''or'' follows from the later leaving out of ''or published'', so amendment No. 363 would simply make an amended subsection readable—

David Amess: Order. It is correct for amendment No. 363 to come before amendment No. 362 because that is the order in which the amendments relate to the Bill.

David Wilshire: I said that over my 15 years in the House I had learned not to tangle with the Clerk's department, and I have just proved why.
 For all practical purposes, the concerns that caused me to table the two amendments are dealt with by amendment No. 362, which would omit the words ''or published''. I readily accept the need to decide what to do when there is a conflict, and I shall discuss the point more generally when I speak to amendment No. 238. I know that I have a suspicious mind—I thought that Opposition politicians were supposed to have suspicious minds so that they could question the Government—but I have the idea that if something is about to happen that a planning authority does not like, it will simply publish a document, although its contents will not subsequently be approved by the Secretary of State or its provisions adopted. If the clause is accepted, planning authorities will need only to whack out a document and say, ''It was published much later than anything else, and until we deal with it or scrap it, it takes precedence.'' I am sure that the Minister will tell me why I need not worry, but I see that loophole. The publication of an unadopted, unapproved document will take precedence over approved and adopted plans that may have been in place for some time. 
 I leave it to the Clerk to decide whether amendment No. 363 is taken before amendment No. 362 or the other way around, because she is the font of all wisdom on such matters, but the gist of my point is contained in amendment No. 362, which would insert ''or'' where it is needed. 
 On amendment No. 238, I have also learned over the years not to tangle with the Law Society, but I shall do so on this occasion because I do not follow its solution to an obvious problem. It is right for us to require some way of resolving such difficulties. It was probably my headmaster who taught me to think like this, and that was probably his intention. He had been a headmaster for 30 years, and he would never allow more than 12 school rules at a time. Although the rules 
 were revised over the years, rule 12 always stayed the same, and it stated that all the other rules were no substitute for common sense. The Law Society is breaking my old headmaster's 12th rule. 
 Some spatial strategies will be produced by bigger and more professional organisations, perhaps with more wisdom; however, as the years go by—I cannot think of an example, but I do not believe that this will be the exception to the general rule—there will be occasions on which something happens that results in conflict because no one quite got round to revising the regional spatial strategy. 
 The world moves on, however, and local situations happen. For instance, there could have been a major redundancy or something could have happened in the area that required a new approach; and it is done through the local plan. However, there could be a clash. If we were to accept the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow—or the Law Society's amendment—we would accept that common sense could not be brought to bear to resolve that conflict. 
 I accept entirely that there must be a mechanism for resolving such conflicts. Indeed, there probably is a loophole in the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will address it and, if necessary, come forward on Report with something that says what should happen in such circumstances. However, I do not support a hard-and-fast rule that must always find in someone's favour, because that would prevent the possibility of change—and of common sense being applied.

Tony McNulty: It is a pleasure, Mr. Amess, to be under your tutelage and chairmanship once again. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ludlow; I hope that fatherhood will result in the toning down of his shirts. Today's is certainly far better than those that he wore before parenthood.
 The difficulty with the amendments is that hon. Members have read the Bill both too literally and, in some senses, not literally enough. The language in the clause is particular and important. Incidentally, I do not say it often, but I fully endorse what the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said about the Law Society amendment—but I shall come to that shortly. 
 The three words used in subsection (5) are specific and important. Local development documents are the only ones that the word ''approved'' could refer to, as they are the only documents in the hierarchy of planning documents that need to be formally adopted by local resolution. The word ''adopted'' refers to local developments; ''approved'' refers to planning documents such as those subsequently endorsed by the Secretary of State after intervention. That is clear, and there is no dispute. 
 In the context of the hierarchy of plans, ''approved'' can mean only something approved by the Secretary of State subsequent to an intervention. In context, ''published'' means—again, specifically—the RSS or the special development strategy. The RSS and the SDS for London are not adopted or approved documents; they are published. That is the only 
 interpretation of ''published'' documents, and the amendments are therefore superfluous.

David Wilshire: I hear what the Minister says, but if a local planning authority holds a committee meeting at which a revision is presented and the information produced on a piece of paper, is it not publishing a document?

Tony McNulty: With the greatest respect, I have to say that the hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen. Local development documents, in whatever shape or form they come, published or otherwise, are not part of any meaning or intent in the clause. Local authorities can publish what they like; unless a local development document or a revision thereto is adopted through the usual process by the local planning authority, it is irrelevant to the clause.
 In subsection (5), ''published'' refers only to the RSS and the SDS. Those strategies will have reached the end of the formal process, subsequent to examination and publication and whatever other process the SDS is going through—published, not adopted, approved, deposited, but only published. In the clause, ''published'' means those regional documents, and nothing else. Whatever the LPA publishes does not matter.

David Wilshire: The Minister must have a different copy of the Bill from mine, because nowhere in subsection (5) can I find any reference to RSS or SDS. How can he assert that it relates only to the clause when it does not say so?

Tony McNulty: Littered throughout the Bill—certainly in parts 1 and 2—are the processes by which RSSs and SDSs are determined. They are determined ultimately by publication. In the narrow legal confines of the clause, in the context of conflict and resolution of conflict between planning documents, the term ''published'' can refer only to RSSs and SDSs; it does not have to say that because the notion is expressed throughout the Bill. The same goes for the words ''approved'' and ''adopted'' in this context. Given that, in whatever order we consider them, to delete ''or published'' is daft. Because the clause is all about the resolution of conflict between the various levels of plan, taking out the words ''or published'' would take out the RSSs and SDSs, and does not make sense. Equally, it is irrelevant to add ''or'' between ''approved'' and ''adopted'', because the two terms mean different things—LDDs are approved subsequent to intervention by the Secretary of State and adopted by resolution by the local planning authority; we do not want references to one ''or'' the other. The second ''or'' would be irrelevant, and would make the clause even more meaningless than would dropping the words ''or published''.
 The hon. Member for Spelthorne is entirely right about amendment No. 238. The whole purpose of re-energising the plan-led system is to ensure that there is flexibility and responsiveness in the system. As he said, in the Law Society amendment the hon. Member for Ludlow is saying that RSSs reign in perpetuity über alles, no matter whether they were published last year or five years ago. That cannot be right. There has 
 to be a degree of temporal hierarchy. It is more than appropriate that conflict between such documents should be resolved by reference to the most recent document, and it is crucial to the responsiveness and flexibility that we want to guarantee in the system. As the system develops, given that all the local development documents will have to be in general conformity with the RSS, the conflict should be minimal. The word ''general'' is important to the argument about whether LDPs or RSSs should prevail. There should be general conformity, rather than the LDP being a local contextualisation of whatever is in the RSS. 
 I hope that we can move on to matters of more substance than this linguistic misinterpretation of the clumsy English language. There are only three definitive interpretations of the terms ''adopted'', ''approved'' and ''published''. None of the amendments would add anything to the resolution of conflict. Indeed, at least two of them would resolve the conflict by dropping one of the three crucial elements of the plan hierarchy. That is not helpful. In that context, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

David Wilshire: I have listened carefully to the Minister. Unless I have missed something, I do not agree with him. I accept that the word ''approved'' is clearly defined. We have had debates about the powers of the Secretary of State to approve, to direct or to require. Similarly, I am conscious of the fact that we have had occasion to agree to clauses in which it says that adoption will be by resolution of the planning authority. I accept that. However, unless I have missed something—or unless, like the Scilly Isles clause, it is tucked away later in the Bill—I do not think that we have discussed the meaning of ''published''.
 It may be that certain things have been published, which is why I ask what is meant by ''published'' on this occasion. Unless the Minister can point to a specific definition of the word ''published'' somewhere in the Bill, the dictionary meaning of ''published'' is relevant. The Minister would like to dismiss my point as pedantic and say that the English is clumsy, but the example that I used is relevant. To have a document put in front of you and given to the press at a council meeting is, by my understanding of the dictionary definition, the publication of a document. If the meaning of the word ''published'' is meant to be restricted to these two documents only, the Bill surely needs to say so. That is all I am doing. 
 If a published document has not been adopted or approved it should not be relevant. However, if the Minister is saying that ''published'' does not refer to those documents, then there is a weakness in the Bill. I am not sure why I am trying to help him, but I am. In case this matter ever goes to court, the Minister, rather than asserting that everyone knows what ''published'' means in this context, must ensure that the Bill defines exactly what it means. It should be defined as being in respect of RSSs and SDSs; then it would mean what the Minister claims it means. As it stands, I can already see the taxi meter of the lawyers' fees clocking 
 up, as people who are paid a great deal more than I am argue exactly the same point that I am arguing now.

Tony McNulty: Clause 8(6) requires the Secretary of State to publish the regional spatial strategy, and as far as I can see, that is the only reference to published documents in this narrowly defined context. Section 337 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, on whose Standing Committee I served with great pleasure, with the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, refers specifically to the mayor's powers to publish the spatial development strategy. They are the only references, I am assured, to documents that have been published by the Secretary of State concerning the RSS.
 The point made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne about local documents being produced at a meeting is entirely spurious and erroneous and has nothing to do with subsection (5) at all. Mere repetition of a point does not make it correct; it remains a fatuous point.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We have had an interesting debate. It is clear that the clause is not entirely clear, and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne has argued cogently for his amendments. We have a great deal to get through today. No doubt what we say will be on the record, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 239, in
clause 37, page 20, line 15, leave out subsection (6).
 This amendment was suggested to me by the Law Society and, not having a legal background myself, I place myself in its hands, because of its legal expertise. The Law Society has foreseen a problem, although I am sure that the Minister will tell us that it is not a problem. The society believes that there is confusion over the status of the development plan for the purposes of determining planning applications. 
 Subsection (6), which amendment No. 239 would remove, repeats, with a slight reordering of the words, section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Law Society believes that there is a problem in that subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of clause 37 define the development plan as being different from what is defined in section 54A of the 1990 Act. There could be confusion about which provision applies, as section 54A is not being repealed. The Government should either adhere to section 54A or specify in the Bill the items that will constitute development plan documents to which planning authorities should have regard when determining applications. 
 For example, will a design brief constitute a development plan document? If so, a developer who does not adopt the recommended design features should have his application rejected on that ground alone. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some clarification. As I have said, better legal brains than mine have foreseen the problem, although perhaps other aspects of the Bill rule it out. I would welcome the Minister's thoughts on the matter.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Member for Ludlow has done the Committee a service by tabling the
 amendment that the Law Society suggested. There is a complicated legal conundrum here, so I shall take things slowly. The conundrum relates to the 1990 Act, which is of considerable size. Mr. Amess, I am sure that you and the Committee will be glad to learn that I shall not read out the entire Act. I assure you that if I did, we should exceed—many times over—the timetable laid down under the programme resolution.
 However, I shall concentrate on section 54A in the 1990 Act. The problem relates to subsection (6) of clause 37. The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Ludlow seeks to delete that subsection, which states: 
''If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts''—
 those are the important words— 
''the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.''
 Which is the definition of the plan on which we shall concentrate? Is it the definition in clause 37 or that in section 54A of the 1990 Act?

Tony McNulty: To save the Committee time, if the hon. Gentleman refers to the list of repeals in schedule 6 and looks under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, it says clearly that part 2 is to be deleted. Section 54A is in part 2, so the dilemma does not prevail. The Law Society has got it wrong.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I had misread the Bill, although I was going to suggest specifically that section 54A be deleted. If, as the Minister says, the whole of part 2 is to be deleted, the argument falls. I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification. I apologise to the Committee; I should have spotted that when I read the Bill at a very late hour last night. I hope that the hon. Member for Ludlow will seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.

Matthew Green: The Minister has pointed out why the amendment is unnecessary, so I do not intend to take up any more of the Committee's time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The clause is relatively short. As I said at the opening of this morning's debate, it enshrines in guidance the highly complex mechanism of the local development scheme, local development plans, local development plan documents and the local development framework. Therefore I am unhappy in principle with both the clause and the local mechanism.
 The position in London is even worse because the Mayor's spatial strategy, not the regional spatial strategy, is to be considered. The former is even less democratic than the latter. Clause 37(2)(a) specifies who should take on the function of the regional planning body—the Mayor. Clause 14(3)(c) makes it clear that the boroughs, in drawing up the local development strategy, must send a copy to the Mayor, and under clause 18(2)(c) the borough must have regard to the Mayor's spatial plan. This is all relevant, 
 Mr. Amess, because what I am talking about is enshrined in the clause. 
 If, for example, Westminster wanted to include a strategy for tall buildings in Paddington, but that conflicted with the Mayor's spatial plan for the whole of London, eventually, under the clause, the matter would be resolved in the Mayor's favour, and the democratic will of Westminster city council would not prevail. The matter needs to be handled with a degree of common sense, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne says. I hope that we shall find, as a generality, that the workings of both the Mayor's spatial plan and the regional spatial plan will be in harmony with those of the local authority. However, I have a suspicion that owing to the complexity of the local plan mechanism, that will not happen. 
 Clause 37(8) is interesting in that it deals with the transition. In particular, paragraph 1(4) of schedule 5 refers to section 27 of the principal Act, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, under which a unitary development plan, together with any alteration, is to become the development plan for the area in question. Whereas the Conservative Government enshrined a bottom-up approach in legislation, by which the plan-making process would be built from the bottom, with the local plan first, then the structure plan and then any intervention by the Secretary of State, the new system will be centralised. In that system, the Secretary of State will make up his mind—and I trust I am correct in quoting the Minister as saying that the regional spatial plan is a creature of the Secretary of State. The Minister has already given the Committee a clue about what will happen. 
 The Secretary of State will decide a national planning policy for this country. He will then dictate that down to the level of regional spatial strategy, and from there it will be dictated down to local level. In my view, that is the wrong way to conduct planning. I do not know how often I must say that if local people do not feel that they have a say in their planning system, they will not have ownership of it. They will feel resentment. That is the wrong way to go about things in a democratic country. 
 I consider this a bad Bill. An increasing number of practitioners who come to see me also think so. The planning system in this country has evolved. It has been built on hundreds of thousands of court cases. Why on earth did Lord Falconer come up with the Green Paper? We are tearing it all up and starting again. I think that we shall rue the day when we tore the whole system up. Why not instead build on the existing system? 
 The clause is a bad one. The local plan system is far too complex and we shall live to rue the day we passed such a measure. However, it would make no sense to vote for the clause to be left out of the Bill; that would be a wrecking amendment. We shall not, therefore, vote against the clause, but we debate it with a heavy heart, because it is wrong.

David Wilshire: An issue that follows from what my hon. Friend said needs to be considered before we agree to the clause. My hon. Friend says that the
 system should be built from the bottom up. I go along with the argument that the development plan should come first—that is the local aspect of the matter, which the people own. The clause makes it into a secondary thing that must fit into the artificial region's spatial strategy. In the case of Greater London, I have not got my mind round the question very far, but I understand the issues that my hon. Friend mentioned involving tall buildings.
 Another issue, however, concerns me greatly. There is no mechanism in the clause. The clause is drafted on the assumption that each region's spatial strategy would exist in isolation from all the others. I can give an example of where that would lead, with reference to development plans. My constituency is administratively part of Surrey, but like other constituencies in that part of what many people call west London—although my constituents object to that—it is hugely dominated by Heathrow. Heathrow falls within Greater London, so the Mayor's spatial strategy would be all-important. 
 Not only is the Mayor about to introduce congestion charging in the centre of London, his next step is to enforce it on Heathrow. One can understand the arguments from a London point of view, or from a passenger point of view, but the overwhelming majority of people in my constituency who have anything to do with Heathrow—not only passengers but people who work there—are not in favour of it. 
 As a result of artificial boundaries, when the development plan for my constituency, which must take account of all the relevant issues, such as employment, has reached a particular conclusion, and public transport matters have been considered in a particular way, along will come the Mayor, poking his nose into my constituents' affairs and, under his spatial strategy and development plan, imposing a strategy that takes no account of the fact that a huge number of people to the south, west and, to a certain extent, north-east of Heathrow have nothing to do with Greater London. The clause provides no mechanism for sorting out that problem.

Tony McNulty: That is in London.

David Wilshire: If the Minister wants to put me out of my misery, I shall willingly give way to him.

Tony McNulty: I merely sought to correct the hon. Gentleman's geography. Anything to the north-east of Heathrow would be solidly inside Greater London.

David Wilshire: That is absolutely right. I deserve to be corrected. I meant to say north-west. Whether we are talking about north-east or north-west, the point is made. It concerns me, and I should be interested to hear the Minister's opinion about how to resolve the problem. The provisions state what should happen in London, and in the artificial regions of England and in Wales, but they do not say what will happen if there is conflict.
 My old headmaster would have been delighted to see, in subsection (6), the phrase, 
''unless material considerations indicate otherwise.''
 That could easily have been written as, ''unless common sense dictates otherwise'', so it seems that the Minister and my headmaster would agree, at least on subsection (6), even if the rest of the Bill is useless.

Sydney Chapman: Subsection (2) refers to Greater London. The position in Greater London—I stand to be corrected if I am wrong—is that the Mayor is responsible for presenting the spatial strategy and the local planning authorities are the London boroughs. As I understand it, the Mayor has absolutely no powers at all. He can propose the strategy, which may be a very good one, but the boroughs do not have to follow it. Whether the boroughs agree with the spatial strategy for their areas or not, the whole matter is judged by the Secretary of State.
 As I argued earlier, I could understand it if the Mayor acted as Secretary of State for Greater London and considered all appeals relating to the area, apart for one or two cases regarding more regional decisions, such as terminal 5, which should be decided by the Secretary of State. I cannot understand why one principle should apply to Greater London and a totally different principle should apply to the other regions. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on that.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I would be grateful if he would press the Minister to explain whether the mayor's spatial plan can dictate the contents of the plans formulated by the boroughs. Subsection (5) states:
''If to any extent a policy contained in a development plan for an area conflicts with another policy in the development plan the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy which is contained in the last document to be adopted''.
 As the mayor's spatial plan has already been adopted, I assume that, in drawing up local development schemes and plans, the boroughs will have to comply with the mayor's spatial plan. My hon. Friend raises an important point and I hope that the Minister will clarify it in winding up.

Sydney Chapman: I honestly do not know the answer. I think that if there is any conflict in Greater London, one does not prevail over the other but the matter goes to the Secretary of State. However, I shall listen with interest to the Minister. There should be cohesion. Either London should change once the Bill is enacted—the powers of the RSS or the RPB should be transferred to the mayor or to the assembly—or the regions should have the same system as Greater London.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The parallel to what we are saying is the opposite—the local plans in the regions are in place, but the regional spatial strategies are not. Under the subsection, one would expect the local plans to take precedence. That, too, needs to be clarified by the Minister.

Sydney Chapman: I understand what my hon. Friend says and I do not need to add to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne made a good point. Until recently, when the boundaries of Greater London were changed, Heathrow was partly in
 Greater London and partly in the borough of Spelthorne. I think that the mayor has obligations to consult planning authorities around London on significant Greater London applications that have to be referred to him.
 Finally, I would have voted for amendment No. 363, because subsection (6) is gobbledegook. It is not just that ''material considerations'' adds nothing to the clause; the subsection is meaningless. It reads: 
''If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.''
 I willingly concede that my knowledge of town and planning law and regulation has become rusty over the past 42 years, but I would welcome some explanation of what that means. More importantly, I should like to hear the Government's thinking on the powers and responsibilities of the mayor and of the Greater London Assembly in relation to RSSs and LDPs, and what is proposed for the other regions in England.

Tony McNulty: The clause seeks merely to define what the development plan is and to specify how to resolve conflicts between the various parts of the plan. The hon. Member for Cotswold had it half right when he said that subsection (5) is crucial because it suggests that the most recent document should prevail; it is a rolling process, and that is appropriate. We do not live in an ideal world, and RSSs and LDPs do not all drop from the sky on the same day at the same time. I shall not rehearse for the umpteenth time the arguments, interesting though they were, as to how dreadful, chaotic and complex the system is. It clearly is not.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is important at this point to clarify the matter in terms of both London and the regions. If there is a conflict in London between the mayor's spatial plan and a borough's local development plan, will the Minister tell us which will take precedence, given that the mayor's spatial plan has already been published and approved, whereas the boroughs' plans have not been approved? In the regions, the opposite applies: local plans have been approved and are in place for most authorities. However, there is no approved regional spatial strategy in place. Under the clause, the most recent published document, the local plan, should take precedence. One or other must be right. Will the Minister clarify which it is?

Tony McNulty: The two systems that the hon. Gentleman describes within London and the rest of the regions are principally in the same situation. I said earlier that the hon. Gentleman was half right. He got it all wrong, however, when he started talking about the London plan. The plan is not approved, published or otherwise. It is in the public domain in draft. Its first consultation period ended on 30 September. People had from then until 14 December, I believe, to submit their views as a prelude to the examination in public, which I think starts in mid-February and finishes in March. I think that the mayor then has until next September to review all considerations, submit the plan to the Secretary of State and have it published. The tail-end of that process will be in September or October.
 The SDS will be in the public domain, published as under the clause, and might well prevail for a short period—I would guess, without knowing the exact details of the timing of the Bill's progress through the House of Commons—until boroughs turn unitary development plans into local development documents. I say for a short period, because there will be any number of boroughs that, under their UDP revision timetable, will be well ahead of the game, in terms of turning their UDPs into those LDDs. If those boroughs do that after publishing the SDS, they will prevail. That is to say that the crux of subsection (5) is the means to resolve conflict. 
 However, once the system is off and rolling, local development plans in London or elsewhere should be in general conformity to the RSS or the SDS. There should be less and less desire for, need for, or chance of, conflict. The provisions are not time limited, and, as ever, the latest adopted, approved or published document will prevail. That is necessarily so for the flexibility and responsiveness of the system to be ensured. Beyond that, the clause simply defines what the development plan is and how that situation is to be resolved.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, although I wish to probe him a little further to see whether I have understood what he said. I am sure that he is right on the timetable for adoption, and that the mayor's spatial plan is already in the public domain. Once that plan is adopted, it will become the last published document, because the borough's local development scheme will not yet be in place. If the mayor introduces a strategy for tall buildings and Westminster borough council wants to build different types of buildings in, for example, Paddington, the mayor's spatial plan will prevail in that conflict, as it will be the last published document. Will the Minister confirm whether I am right?

Tony McNulty: It depends. If it were Tuesday 6 September and Westminster had not turned its UDP into an LDD, but by some happenstance the mayor had finally published the SDS, the hon. Gentleman would be right. If it were 15 October 2003, the SDS had not yet been published and Westminster still had its fully adopted and approved UDP, he would be wrong. It is purely a matter of time. Responsiveness is what matters. I suspect that, given the schedule of UDP deposits and revision for each London borough—I have that roughly in my head—and how that will work when there is transfer to LDDs, the SDS will prevail for a short period. However, some boroughs will come on stream faster than others in terms of the transition from UDP to LDD, and the SDS will no longer prevail.
 Prevail is almost the wrong word though, because the transition from the UDP to the local development documents will still have to be done in general conformity to the SDS. It is not a matter of there being such stark differences in the documents. That situation certainly did not prevail in a previous incarnation of the duality of models between the Greater London development plan and the old borough plan. One had to survive and develop in 
 general conformity to the other. The matter is essentially to do with timing. That is not avoiding the issue—I am not a futurologist.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I project the Minister forward? There is an issue of timing in the initial phase. However, suppose that the same conflict arises in three years. From what the Minister said, there will be no conflict because the borough's local development schemes will have to conform to the mayor's spatial plan. They will have no option but to conform. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that I have got that right.

Tony McNulty: No. The crucial word is ''general''. Without being trite about geography, Paddington is probably the worst example because of its high buildings, Paddington basin and so on. Westminster may deem it entirely appropriate, but it may be more relevant there than elsewhere. It is futile to roll forward two or three years. General conformity is what is required; and general is the key word.
 Westminster, or any other borough, might make an absolute case for the level of building development in particular areas of the borough being be at such-and-such a storey limit, rather than what is now springing up as an adjunct to the City of London. If that is agreed, it might establish clear material considerations and reasons for that development lying outside of a curious plan laid down in the SDS that there should be 30, 40 or 50-storey skyscrapers throughout London, which is not what prevails in the London plan, or in any other plan. 
 If it can be established that there is significant material consideration, whether it be heritage, the environment or the other factors that come into the drafting of LDDs, as well as the SDS and RSS, that there should not be such a significant high level development in Westminster, and if the suggestion subsequently undergoes the routine process of adoption through the local development documents, that would prevail over the previously published SDS, but only if it is for sound material planning considerations. It is not about the SDS or the RSS being absolute blueprints, that each and every local planning authority has to copy and implement locally, even to crossing the t's and dotting the i's.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for given way again; he is being extremely generous, but it is an important matter. We have had some clarification in relation to London. I hope that this is my last intervention.
 I ask the Minister to turn his mind to the situation in the shire districts. What would happen there? How would conflicts be resolved? What would happen if the regional spatial plan handed down house-building target numbers to each local development scheme and plan? What flexibility would each local authority have to reduce, or even to increase, that target number?

Tony McNulty: The clear shift from land-use planning to a broader regional basis allows us to move away from the old predict-and-provide model. The same resolution device would prevail, and that is
 to be found in subsection (5). The document of most significance in terms of the plan would be the last-published, most relevant and the most up-to-date document. That flexibility and responsibility is key; it underpins the whole Bill.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 - Sustainable development

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 221, in
clause 38, page 20, line 28, at the end insert— 
 '( ) For the purposes of this section 'sustainable development' will mean development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and includes— 
 (a) Social progress which recognises the needs of everyone, 
 (b) Effective protection of the environment, 
 (c) Prudent use of natural resources, and 
 (d) Maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 372, in 
clause 38, page 20, line 28, at end insert— 
 '( ) For the purpose of this section the meaning of sustainable development shall be defined in guidance to be prescribed by the Secretary of State'.
 Amendment No. 359, in 
clause 38, page 20, line 34, leave out 
 'with a view to contributing' 
 and insert 'so as to contribute'.
 Amendment No. 327, in 
clause 38, page 20, line 34, leave out 'a view to contributing' and insert 'regard'.
 Amendment No. 255, in 
clause 38, page 20, line 34, after 'to', insert 
 'helping to ensure that suitable land is available for development in ways that accord with economic, social and environmental policies and'.
 Amendment No. 364, in 
clause 38, page 20, line 34, after 'contributing', insert 
 'in so far as in practicable'.
 Amendment No. 226, in 
clause 38, page 20, line 35, leave out 'sustainable development' and insert— 
 '(a) sustainable development, integrating and achieving environmental, social, economic and natural resource use objectives simultaneously; 
 (b) accountable decision making in the public interest; and 
 (c) the facilitation of, and enhancement of, public engagement in the planning process.'.
 Amendment No. 371, in 
clause 38, page 20, line 35, after 'development', insert 
 'including prudent use of natural resources and effective protection and enhancement of the natural environment'.
 Amendment No. 353, in 
clause 38, page 20, line 35, at end insert 
 ', the protection and the enhancement of the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending upon them.'.
 Amendment No. 256, in 
clause 38, page 20, line 35, at end insert— 
 '(2A) For the purpose of this section sustainable development means— 
 (a) social progress which recognises the needs of everyone to access high quality public services, education and employment opportunities, decent, accessible and inclusive housing and local environments, 
 (b) effective protection of the environment including limiting global environmental threats, such as climate change, protecting human health and safety from hazards such as poor air quality and toxic chemicals and protecting things which people need or value, such as wildlife, landscapes and historic buildings, 
 (c) prudent use of natural resources making sure that non renewable natural resources are used efficiently and that alternatives are developed to replace them in due course and using renewable resources, such as water, used in ways that do not endanger the resource or cause serious damage or pollution, and 
 (d) maintaining high and stable levels of economic growth and employment, so that everyone can share in high living standards and greater job opportunities provided through businesses which are ready to invest with infrastructure to support them.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This large group of amendments concerns the definition of sustainability. I say in passing, as the Minister is about to leave the Room, that the previous debate was one of the most illuminating. When that happens, the Committee is working at its best, so I thank the Minister for his explanations.
 The Opposition believe that the Bill should define sustainable. Many people have wrestled with such a definition, and we believe that it should at least be attempted so that we can measure the progress of planning authorities against that definition. We have received many representations on this question from many bodies. I shall go through some of those representations and some of the definitions that have been suggested, and say why we have chosen what I believe to be the best definition in amendment No. 256, which was proposed by the Town and Country Planning Association. 
 I start with amendment No. 221, a definition that I dreamed up from the Government's documents. It is a summary of amendment No. 256. 
 Amendment No. 372 was suggested by the Confederation of British Industry, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the British Retail Consortium, and it states: 
''For the purpose of this section the meaning of sustainable development shall be defined in guidance to be prescribed by the Secretary of State''.
 Everywhere in the Bill, we have guidance. I find guidance not to be the best or most democratic way to proceed. The Bill should be clear. I do not like the amendment. Sustainability should be defined in the Bill. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet drafted amendment No. 359, which puts a much more positive duty on the authorities in parts 1, 2 and 6. I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's 
 amendment, although I would like to see a proper definition in the Bill. 
 The Woodland Trust suggested amendment No. 327, which would leave out ''a view to contributing'' and insert ''regard''. The trust wants to ensure that sustainable development is placed at the heart of the planning system, and to ensure that effective protection of the environment and the integration of social, economic and environmental aims are central to the operation of the system. No one would disagree with that, but I believe that we have come up with a better definition. 
 Amendments Nos. 255, 364 and 226, tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow, build on some of the definitions of my earlier amendment. If I may say so with great tact, I do not think amendment No. 226 is as good as amendment No. 256, which is a much more full definition. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet drafted amendments No. 371 and 353. 
 We come now to the meat of the Bill and what I believe to be the best amendment, should the Government be minded to include a definition in the Bill. A number of people over many years have wrestled with a definition of sustainability.

Huw Edwards: Can the hon. Gentleman give us an example of sustainability being defined in Acts passed by a Conservative Government? Will he confirm that the principle of sustainability is enshrined in the Government of Wales Act 1998, which his party opposed?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman will know, as he obviously has an interest in the matter—I shall go through the history of the subject in a moment—that it is an evolving subject. People's views on it have changed. Therefore, the definition that I propose in amendment No. 256 is, for now, the best definition that we can come up with. Were we debating the issue 30 years ago, nobody would think about sustainability in relation to planning. They would get on with their daily lives and consider each development as it came along. However, as the hon. Gentleman will see in the history of definitions of sustainable development, people by and large feel that every development affects other people and the world's resources. The Government have included sustainable development in clause 38. If they believe—and it is right that they should—that planning matters should include sustainable development, there should be a definition in the Bill.
 Before I come on to the history of the definition, I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, if the Bill includes no definition, I am certain that before long an application will be made in the High Court involving someone who has carried out a development or drawn up a plan somewhere along the line. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said, learned barristers will be paid a huge amount of money to argue over the definition of sustainable development. 
 The Bill should contain a definition that can be changed by statutory instrument under a proposal by 
 the Secretary of State. That is the obvious way to deal with the matter. I do not think that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) and I are talking at cross-purposes—at least I hope that we are not. If he does not think that the Bill should include a definition, no doubt he will say so. Perhaps he would like to intervene now. If he really thinks that the Bill should not contain a definition, I shall happily give way. The hon. Gentleman does not wish to intervene, so he must feel that the Bill should include a definition. 
 The Library has produced a helpful brief on the subject. It is its standard note SNSC 742, which was updated on 28 August 2002. The brief provides a short history of sustainable development. The section on defining sustainable development states: 
''The concept of sustainable development was essentially introduced to the world at large at the Rio Earth Summit. As a concept it seems to be fairly simple until there is a need to define it, such as to introduce the principle to legislative programmes.
Whilst most people believe they have a rough idea of what the term means, legislation requires working definitions rather than vague ideas. There have however been many attempts to define the concept.''
 One of the earlier definitions was the Brundtland statement, which said that any development should leave the world in as good a condition as it was found. 
 The Government picked up the sustainability challenge in its consultation paper ''Sustainable development: opportunities for change''. I have based the wording of amendment No. 256 on that paper, which builds on the Brundtland definition. It says: 
''Sustainable development is a very simple idea. It is about ensuring a better quality of life for everyone''.
 It includes four objectives that I have mentioned in my definition, the first of which is social progress that recognises everyone's needs. The document says: 
''It is not enough to focus on economic and environmental policies if whole groups in society, or parts of the country, are excluded.''
 The next objective, which is mentioned in amendment No. 256, is effective protection of the environment. The document says: 
''This means acting to limit global environmental threats, such as climate change; to protect human health and safety from hazards such as poor air quality and toxic chemicals''.
 The third objective is the prudent use of natural resources. It says: 
''This does not mean denying ourselves the use of non-renewable resources like oil and gas, but we do need to make sure that we use them efficiently''.
 The fourth objective is the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment, 
''so that everyone in Britain can share in high living standards''.
 The Library brief tells us that the World Business Council for Sustainable Development provides a glossary, in which it defines sustainability. It says that there are more than 100 definitions of sustainability and sustainable development, but they are not the same thing. It states: 
''The implementation of sustainable development is essentially the reduction of the ecological footprint of the human race. Each person, by their very existence, impacts on the environment.''
 That must be right. That is why we must ensure that all our developments are carried out in a sustainable way. Mineral extraction is one form of development that uses up resources more quickly than anything else, but the Minister scoffed when I said that nothing in the Bill ensures that we adopt policies towards mineral development that minimise the use of aggregates. 
 The Government produced a long list of targets in an attempt to ensure that every Department adopted policies consistent with sustainable development. The Government attach great importance to those targets. After all, they created Green Ministers. The Minister for the Environment tried to explain how the Government would take on Agenda 21, which builds on the Rio summit in relation to sustainability. In answer to a parliamentary question, he said: 
''There is no mandatory requirement on any organisation to take on Agenda 21. However, a wide range of organisations, including central and local government, business and the voluntary sector, are committed to take forward the Agenda 21 agreement on sustainable development.''—[Official Report, 29 July 1997; Vol. 299, c. 193W.]
 The Minister's former Department, the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, introduced a best-value indicator to report on the progress made by local authorities on community strategies. A survey of English and Welsh authorities by the Local Government Association in autumn 2001 found that 27 per cent. of the 67 per cent. of authorities that responded had developed a strategy. The Bill is a further twist to encourage authorities to act in a sustainable way. 
 As I said, the Government created the role of Green Minister, and although that has been enhanced and strengthened, it does not go as far as it should. The Government's greening initiative will now continue as sustainable development. They have introduced three broad priority areas: integrating sustainable development into decision making; improving performance of the Government estate—I have already said that the Government have set targets for that—and promoting understanding of sustainable development across government. 
 Sustainable development has featured in spending reviews, and was an overall theme in the spending round for 2002, so the Treasury has become involved in it. In their report ''Quality of Life Counts'', the Government gave details of which indicators they planned to utilise to measure sustainable development. They established 15 indicators, which I shall not list. The Environmental Audit Select Committee reported on the Government's sustainability indicators and found that only 10 out of 15 had been widely implemented. The Committee said: 
''One could just as easily present the 2001 assessments as showing that only two of the seven environmental indicators . . . are showing clear progress.
The Government must ensure that appropriate data is collected. Given that the 15 headline indicators were established in 1999, we are surprised and disappointed that there is still insufficient data in some areas to provide a complete picture.''
 DEFRA published an updated report in 2002 ''Quality of Life''—barometer leaflets. The Minister 
 for the Environment gave a definition in answer to a parliamentary question, which I summarised. On 25 January 2002, the Government launched their new sustainable development website, and the public will be able to see clearly from that whether those 15 indicators have been reached. 
 With that rather long history of the need for sustainable development and the Government's progress on it, I commend amendment No. 256 to the Committee. The amendment has built on the four original themes from the Government's document. After some research, I find it to be the best definition. It is supported by the organisations that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, and by the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Disability Rights Commission, among others. 
 Given the spirit that the Minister showed on the last clause, I hope that we will get not merely half a loaf, but a whole one, and that he will accept the amendment. 
Several hon. Members rose—

David Amess: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should tell the Committee that I have considered the amendments carefully and it seems to me that the whole of this clause is being amended at some point. Therefore, it is unlikely that we shall have a clause stand part debate.

Matthew Green: This is an interesting group of amendments. It is a bit of a ''pick and mix'' for the Minister, because it gives him several options. He can, if he wants, take the opportunity to define sustainable development. I suspect that the Minister will tell us that the various amendments that Conservative Members and I have tabled have omissions, are too narrowly defined or have some other problem. However, they provide the Minister with an opportunity to define sustainable development. I am worried that the Bill does not define sustainable development. To rely on guidance from the Secretary of State, which is the intention of the Bill, is not entirely satisfactory, as he can change guidance without much debate.
 Sustainable development is one of the most important issues facing us today, and one of the most important matters to be dealt with in the Bill. I am sure that the Minister could dissect every word and line in every amendment—and there is a tension between some of them—but I hope that he will not. I hope that he will tell us either that he will propose something new on Report to define sustainable development or that that is not needed. The latter is a view with which I would not agree. 
 Amendment No. 226 in my name is a good strong amendment, as is amendment No. 256 in the name of the hon. Member for Cotswold. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that on Report he will find words to define sustainable development with which he is happy.

Sydney Chapman: Thank you, Mr. Amess, for the early warning that we might not have a clause stand part debate. Whatever we think about the provisions of the Bill, both sides of the Committee
 should be united in wanting definitions of the purpose of planning and of sustainable development. Virtually every organisation that has made representations to me about the Bill has said that there needs to be a definition of sustainable development. I need not mention all of them, but as well as the Royal National Institution for the Blind, the Disability Rights Commission, Friends of the Earth, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, the Town and Country Planning Association, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Countryside Agency, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the list includes even—I use that word not to denigrate them but to show the catholic spread of support for a definition in the Bill—the CBI and the British Retail Consortium.
 I do not think that sustainable development is mentioned in any other legislation on the statute book. It is certainly not mentioned in the principal 1990 Act. The phrase has only recently come into our vocabulary, as has spatial development. 
 The Town and Country Planning Acts of 1947 and 1990 do not mention sustainable development. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold who said that it was born at the Rio summit 11 years ago. It is essential to have a definition. At the earth summit in Johannesburg I got it down to seven words: conserving earth's finite resources for future generations. That is simple and short, if a little pompous—but I am the first to accept that it would be irrelevant and meaningless in the context of town and country planning in England and Wales, so we still need a definition. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has a Christmas tree of definitions in the amendments, some of which contradict each other. Naturally, I go along with him in observing that the principal one, in amendment No. 256, is the most comprehensive: 
'(2A) For the purpose of this section sustainable development means— 
 (a) social progress which recognises the needs of everyone to access high quality public services, education and employment opportunities, decent, accessible and inclusive housing and local environments, 
 (b) effective protection of the environment including limiting global environmental threats, such as climate change, protecting human health and safety from hazards such as poor air quality and toxic chemicals and protecting things which people need or value, such as wildlife, landscapes and historic buildings, 
 (c) prudent use of natural resources making sure that non renewable natural resources are used efficiently and that alternatives are developed to replace them in due course and using renewable resources, such as water, used in ways that do not endanger the resource or cause serious damage or pollution, and 
 (d) maintaining high and stable levels of economic growth and employment, so that everyone can share in high living standards and greater job opportunities provided through businesses which are ready to invest with infrastructure to support them.'.
 That is the one that was suggested to us by the Town and Country Planning Association. 
 The definition in amendment No. 221 is shorter, but mentions all four points. I was so frightened when the Minister told us off the other day for having unnecessary subsections that I tabled amendment No. 371 without a series of subsections. It merely requires us to insert after ''development'' the words: 
''including prudent use of natural resources and effective protection and enhancement of the natural environment.''
 It is necessary to have a definition of sustainable development, first because I am almost certain that it is not defined in any previous legislation, and secondly, because defining it should not be left to guidance notes. That would create a field day for lawyers. Thirdly, if a definition is not included in the Bill, committees, regional assemblies and local planning authorities will argue about what it should be. The Minister has a choice and I shall leave it to him. 
 None the less, I shall quote from the note about clause 38 in the immensely helpful explanatory notes that accompany the Bill: 
''In exercising those functions, the persons or bodies concerned must do so with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. The persons or bodies therefore need to consider how the policies and plans set out in those documents will contribute to this aim''.
 In fairness, I must add that it continues: 
''In doing so, they must have regard to policies and guidance on sustainable development issued by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales.''
 However, the definition is so important, and so germane to the legislation, that a definition of sustainable development must be included in the Bill. 
 Amendment No. 353, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold referred, is not, of course, in my name but in that of the hon. Member for Ludlow; I am glad to correct that. 
 The Minister will have noticed immediately that my amendment No. 359 contradicts amendment No. 327. The explanation for that is that, obviously, amendment No. 359 was tabled after No. 327, and on balance, I believed it to be preferable. The Government's proposals to include a statutory purpose for planning in any proposals are welcome, but I would like to see that in the Bill. 
 The Bill would require plan makers to have 
''a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.''
 That is more positive than usual, because it does not employ the usual phrase, ''have regard to''. However, that is offset by the duty being governed only by the phrase ''a view to.'' The requirement would be more definite if the words that I have suggested were included. 
 I will make one final point, because this is effectively the clause stand part debate. If I had had any doubt about whether a definition of sustainable development should be included in the Bill, that doubt was dispelled by the remarks made on Second Reading by the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women who, when giving a definition, referred to economic growth alone. 
 I am long enough in the tooth to know that when issues are unclear in debate and in the legislation, the courts, if they decide that the legislation is not specific enough, will look carefully at the speeches made by Ministers on Second Reading. The Minister mentioned only economic growth—I do not think that I am doing her a disservice by saying that—and it is therefore vital that that be corrected. Sustainable development should be defined as the 
''prudent use of natural resources''
 and the other two detailed definitions suggested in amendment No. 256. It is essential that a definition be included in the Bill.

David Wilshire: The clause will, quite rightly, exercise our minds for quite a while, because it goes to the heart of a range of things that we have touched upon earlier.
 Sustainability is something that, although we know it when we see it, we do not know how to define. That worries me, because writing that sort of concept into a Bill is one way to make bad law. I therefore fully support the argument that we must have a definition of sustainability if we are to include that concept in the Bill. 
 The Minister suggested earlier that my queries about definitions were pedantic or silly. However, one has only to look at the issues and ideas included in the amendments in an attempt to reach a definition to appreciate how fundamental that concept is to the sort of society in which we live. If we are prepared to define in legislation the meaning of ''publish'' or ''adopted'', we must give clear definitions for an issue as important as this. If we do not, the issues in the Bill will be all things to all people, and that does not make good law. 
 Moreover, if the clause intends sustainable development to be borne in mind all the time, and we do not know what it means because we have not defined it, how can we test whether the spatial strategies or the plans are achieving what the clause would require? Without a definition, it is impossible to know whether plans are right. We need a definition, both because it goes to the heart of the matter and because we need a test of success. I can understand why any Government struggling with the definitional problem would find it difficult, and I can understand why no definition is provided: if all else fails, the problem will not need to be wrestled with. 
 The great difficulty of tabling amendments was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold when he pointed to more than 100 different attempts to define sustainability. If people are now drafting the 101st and 102nd attempts, it suggests that the concept is woolly, and no one is really sure what it means. That may be a good reason for not including it in the Bill, yet we all accept that having some sort of objective such as sustainability in the Bill would be useful. This is a real conundrum, so we should reflect carefully on the amendments and the issues that they raise. I hope that the Minister will join in the debate on the importance of those concepts. 
 As we are having a clause stand part debate through the amendments, let me make another general observation. The pessimistic message is that even if 
 the 101st definition proves to be the ''Eureka, there it is! We've cracked it!'' definition, we will only have cracked it for today, for this week, or at best, for this month. Whatever sustainability is, it is an ever changing concept. We would take our stand on what we mean according to the current state of science and technology, current social priorities and the philosophy or party politics of the Government in power. 
 With these hugely political issues, any definition will reflect what the people doing the defining want to achieve through changing society. We would probably have to revisit the meaning of sustainability at every general election. The same would apply every time a different theme became a social priority. For example, a development plan making provision for building prisons would reflect public opinion about how many people should be sent to prison. As we know from the newspapers, that can fluctuate wildly from week to week. The concept of sustainability brings in subjective judgments, so it is not surprising that framing law on such judgments proves so difficult. 
 I shall make some further general observations about amendments Nos. 359, 327 and 364, which all struggle with the question of whether ''contributing to'' should be defined in this or that way. Amendment No. 364 is designed to introduce the term, 
''in so far as is practicable''.
 The clause provides that contributing to sustainable development must constantly be borne in mind. In the obvious example of mineral extraction, that is not possible. 
 The hon. Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris) represents the area in which I was born and grew up. Since Roman times, it had been a coal mining community. While I still lived there and was active in local government, the coal mines finally closed. It is not possible to work coal and conform to definitions of sustainability; coal cannot be mined for ever. Working finite resources is incompatible with sustainability. Exceptions to sustainability have to be made, and amendment No. 364 is designed to recognise them.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In that example, my hon. Friend has touched on why we need a definition of sustainability. There are ways of winning coal that are much more sustainable than others. Examples include considering the minimisation of the use of coal in power generation by heat recovery, and the proper restoration of the coal spoil after the coal has been mined, so it is necessary to include a definition in the Bill.
 Furthermore, does my hon. Friend consider that as we are trying to impose definitions of sustainability on the developing world, it would be hypocritical in the extreme if we did not impose a definition on ourselves for development in a developed country?

David Wilshire: I have no difficulty in agreeing with every word. Indeed, that saves me having to say some of it. My hon. Friend is right, although I am not sure
 about whether we should legislate for what people in other countries will say.
 However, on the question of how we work minerals, I accept that we can make them last longer by the way in which we use them. I raised the example of coal in north Somerset because however carefully we conserve it, there will come a time when the finite resource runs out if we continue to work it. I was simply saying that amendment No. 364 introduces the concept that we must keep the definition in mind once we have it, except in certain circumstances in which we know that infinite sustainability is not possible. I do not think that contradicts my hon. Friend's points, with which I agree. 
 The Bill is silent on that thorny issue, and I try to guess why. As I said, one reason may be that as there are so many different definitions, it would be better not to try any of them in case we end up going round in circles. I listened with care to my hon. Friend's examples, and I have looked carefully at the amendments that were tabled in my name. I propose to examine the amendments in some detail to point out that any Government would be silent on the issue, because whatever definitions they came up with would immediately start writing in conflicts between the concepts that they were defining. The Government could write that one thing was a good idea and then that something else was a good idea, but then they would suddenly realise that if they followed both those laudable concepts, they would encounter some difficulties. 
 I should explain that further. There are four attempts in this group of amendments to define sustainability. Amendments Nos. 221 and 256 stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, myself and other colleagues, and I will speak about them in a moment. Amendment No. 226 is the Liberal Democrats' attempt, and I do not find it wholly a definition. It raises some issues that are wrapped up with other amendments, so I will not spend too much time on it—although that is not to say that I dismiss it. 
 I will first address amendment No. 372, which makes an attempt to deal with the problem, because that can be done quickly. This is the jackboot amendment, even though it stands in my name rather than that of the Minister, and says that sustainable development means whatever the Secretary of State says it means. I do not need to rehearse my views on that, and I am a little embarrassed that that amendment stands in my name, but at least it gives me the opportunity to speak to it. A diktat from the Secretary of State, continually giving him more powers, could solve the problem, but it would just make the jackboot heavier. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold wanted me to support amendment No. 372, I would find it difficult to do so. 
 Amendments Nos. 221 and 256 both have four themes. It is easy enough to write four themes, and again this is motherhood and apple pie. We all want the considerations of social progress, the environment, natural resources and economic growth to be built into sustainability. Thus far we can agree on those worthy 
 aspirations. However, the moment one writes them down there are difficulties. 
 There are some interesting issues connected with amendment No. 221. Proposed new paragraph (a) in the amendment refers to 
''Social progress which recognises the needs of everyone''.
 I can go along with that—until I go back to my constituency and my constituents say, ''It is absolutely vital that we build another runway at Heathrow because our employment prospects and high living standards depend on it.'' Everyone needs such development, because it spills down into the entire community. We do not want redundancies or recession in that part of England—but I also meet people who say, ''I need a good night's sleep, and I don't want my weekends ruined when I'm having a barbecue in the garden.'' How on earth do we resolve the conflict that is immediately introduced when we pursue the worthy aspiration of meeting ''the needs of everyone''? 
 We would all say that the 
''Effective protection of the environment'',
 as specified in proposed new paragraph (b) in the amendment, is a laudable aim. I do not believe that it makes me a philistine if I say, ''Hang on a minute. What about the economic cost of the effective protection of the environment?'' We could continue to use my Heathrow examples. It would be possible to insist on more environmental measures in aviation that would push the cost of travel so high that there would be unemployment in the aviation industry. The effective protection of the environment would immediately impose an economic cost—so the second of those worthy themes starts to become rather complicated. 
 Proposed new paragraph (c) refers to the 
''Prudent use of natural resources''.
 We have debated the matter before, so I shall not repeat the arguments, but use the same example as before—gravel working in my constituency—to make the point. The idea of the prudent use of gravel would suggest that we should use every last bit of gravel that we can get out of every hole that we dig. However, getting the first three quarters or the first two thirds out is easy, quick and cheap, whereas getting the remaining quarter or third out is a protracted process that puts the cost up. 
 Using that definition of sustainable development, the prudent use of natural resources would mean carrying on irrespective, until the resources are gone, which would impose a cost. It would also annoy the people who live nearby, because they would have to put up with the process for a huge length of time. From their point of view, it would be better for the mineral workers to take the easy bit quickly and then move on somewhere else. The interpretation of the ''prudent use'' of natural resources depends on what one means by ''prudent''. Prudent for whom? Answering that question will not be easy. 
 Proposed new paragraph (d) mentions the 
''Maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.''
 We would all say amen to that. However, the trouble with that provision is that it probably conflicts with paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). If one set out to maintain high and stable levels of economic growth and employment in my constituency, one would have to go on developing the airport, and cheap air travel. The moment we develop an airport further, thousands of people start complaining bitterly. The more there are companies such as Ryanair and easyJet, the more people talk about global warming and all the aircraft rushing around all over the place, and ask whether air travel should be restricted by taxing it. The net result of having a definition involving maintaining 
''high and stable levels of economic growth''
 is that all the other definitions are promptly undermined. 
 I am therefore not surprised that the Government should seek to duck the amendment if they can; I would do so the same, for the same reason. I applaud the drafters of amendment No. 256, because in spotting the difficulties in the generalities, themes and worthy aspirations, they have attempted to say exactly what is meant. The only trouble is, however, that that adds to the tensions and conflicts, rather than clarifying them. 
 Let us consider amendment No. 256, which has the same pattern of paragraphs—(a), (b), (c) and (d)—as amendment No. 221. It would write into the legislation examples of what could easily go wrong. The amendment refers to 
''social progress which recognises the needs of everyone—''
 I have explained the difficulties with that— 
''to access high quality public services, education and employment opportunities, decent, accessible and inclusive housing and local environments''.
 Ensuring employment opportunities in my constituency means ensuring that Heathrow airport continues, flourishes and gets bigger and more prosperous, but ensuring a local environment that is congenial to people means the opposite. Therefore the moment we expand any of these provisions, we simply write in another difficulty. 
 The same is true of suggested new paragraph (b), which raises the question of protecting the environment. It would extend the definition of the environment away from the natural environment, because the words ''historic buildings'' pop up in it. Of course that is right. That concept of the environment includes old churches and similar buildings, and everyone thinks that that is wonderful—but historic buildings are part of the built environment. Therefore the amendment is saying that protecting the environment means protecting both the natural environment and the built environment—and it does not take a genius to work out that I will go on to say that built environments include airports. We are therefore saying that to protect the environment we have to protect airports. However, to protect airports we have to destroy the natural environment. Yet again, in 
 amendment No. 256 we are struggling to get round that point. 
 Suggested new paragraph (c) refers to the 
''prudent use of natural resources''.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold helped me on that, but that is another attempt at expansion, so we have another conflict. The provision is about the 
''prudent use of natural resources making sure that non renewable natural resources are used efficiently and that alternatives are developed to replace them''.
 I look forward to someone explaining how we replace the natural resource of land, which is finite. If we are talking about committing ourselves to policies designed to find an alternative to land, I am struggling, and I suspect that there are difficulties with paragraph (c).

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The reference to ''natural resources'' is to what I call the non-renewable type of natural resources, such as oil and gas. It must be prudent that a country looks for alternatives—for example, the use of hydrogen cars—rather than using up the world's finite oil, so some form of definition of the prudent use of natural resources in relation to development must make sense.

David Wilshire: That is exactly my point. We all agree with that. It is one of these worthy aspirations, and I do not mean to belittle it by describing it as such. The problem is that the definition includes land. Land is a natural resource, and as far as I can tell it is non-renewable; how would we find an alternative for the finite resource of land?
 I am simply illustrating the near impossibility of coming up with what we need if we are to keep the concept of sustainability in the Bill. I suspect that all this leads in the end to the argument that we should take the provision out of the Bill, but if I said that, I would be branded yet again as a philistine who just wants to run amok and who could not care less about the future—which is the furthest thing possible from the truth. The fact is that the moment one tries to write these provisions down, one gets into all these difficulties. 
 Finally, paragraph (d) in amendment No. 256 refers to 
''maintaining high and stable levels of economic growth and employment, so that everyone can share in high living standards and greater job opportunities provided through businesses which are ready to invest with infrastructure to support them.''
 Amen to that, but paragraph (b) is about 
''effective protection of the environment . . . protecting human health and safety from hazards such as poor air quality and toxic chemicals and protecting things which people . . . value''.
 One difficulty of generating ever more wealth, and sustainable wealth, is the proliferation of rules and regulations on health and safety, and employment law. I am not against those, but an aspiration such as maintaining high levels of economic growth immediately conflicts with the increased desire for health and safety. 
 We have gone from a short definition in amendment No. 221 to one that is double the length in amendment No. 256. If, having listened to the debate, anybody 
 would like to improve on those two, they might write another, four times as long as the first. Even then, there will still, inevitably, be conflicts in it. There are difficulties that need to be overcome. 
 Three other amendments are worthy of comment. They seek to add specific things to the general statement of sustainability, rather than to provide definitions. Amendment No. 353 refers to aquatic ecosystems. If the hon. Member for Ludlow would explain what he has in mind, I should be happy to comment on whether it is a good idea.

Matthew Green: I did not say anything earlier as I am conscious that we have spent a long time on this group of amendments. The purpose of amendment No. 353 is to tease out of the Minister whether the intention is that those items should be included.

David Wilshire: I am happy to support that. If the hon. Gentleman manages to drag something out of the Minister, it will be a tremendous achievement.
 Amendment No. 371 refers to the prudent use of resources. We have done that to death and I shall not add anything. Amendment No. 255 suggests that we add 
''helping to ensure that suitable land is available for development''.
 Perhaps a sub-amendment should say ''but not in my constituency.'' Everybody will want us to have adequate land to do all those things, but will want it to be somewhere else. The Government are determined to build over the whole of Surrey and south-east England with ever-smaller houses. Perhaps the Minister would like to push them into Harrow or elsewhere. I am worried about the concept of providing yet more land. I should have thought that sustainable development meant that we were not trying to build even more houses, so that is another conflict. 
 I look forward to hearing what the Minister says. If we are to leave the clause as it is, with its mention of sustainable development, we have to have a proper definition of it. The Minister has two choices. He may say, ''On reflection, it is too difficult; we are going down an unnecessary route and we should take the phrase out on the understanding that we can apply the principle at the point when such things are approved by the Secretary of State.'' Alternatively, as we have made little progress in having the Bill changed, he may say that the point is important; it represents the Government's commitment to an airy-fairy idea that I would probably call social engineering, and certainly political correctness. I guess that he will choose the second route, and if he wants to do so, he has the majority. 
 However, and this is a non-party political point, I must say in all conscience that the Bill needs a definition, no matter who is in Government. We must be clear what we mean by sustainable development. We have had a stab at offering the Minister some definitions; I have indicated to him where they are inadequate. If he wants the phrase to remain, he must come up with a definition. I do not mind if he does not like ours; I am not sure that I like it. However, at least we have had the guts to try. I now 
 invite the Minister to have a go and to see whether he can do a better job than we have done.

Tony McNulty: There are, of course, three options rather than two. If the last half hour has shown anything, Mr. Amess, it has shown your prescience in deciding that there should not be a clause stand part debate on this clause. However, it is appropriate to take time over the important points raised.
 The three options are to take the phrase out, leave it in or amend it. We are certainly not going to take it out. Nor shall we amend it, for reasons that I shall come to. As some Opposition Members have clearly shown, albeit tortuously, it is inappropriate to include a definition in the Bill. So we shall leave the phrase in, unless, rather than making law in statute, as we are doing, we are running a rather fun sixth-form debating society. In that case, we could carry on until we come up with the 101st definition; that one might be the ''Eureka, we've finally got it''. For better or worse, we are redefining the legal framework for planning and, for better or worse, that implies lawyers, who like nothing more than ill-defined concepts in legislation, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne did us the service of confirming. 
 None of the definitions of sustainability and sustainable development in the amendments nor any of the multitude of definitions that we received during consultation can be said to be definitive, exhaustive and, most important, challenge free. I am sure that no member of the Committee would want to include in the Bill a provision that did not promote sustainable development. No one wants to include a definition that obfuscates and obscures the fundamental sustainable development framework that underpins all that we are trying to do in the planning system. Uniquely, perhaps, in trying to propose definitions, in the nicest possible way, Opposition Members have shown why the Government's approach is the most appropriate. 
 I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cotswold—or perhaps it was the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet—for being grateful for the little briefing note. I fully accept that, whatever may be said about Pauline conversions, the whole Committee wants to put sustainable development at the core of the Bill, although we are arguing about the best way of doing that. The wording of the amendments might be fine in guidance or given as advice on when the concept of sustainability should be applied, but such wordings will cause uncertainty in a legal context, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne said. What is the definitive definition of ''social progress''? There are 16 people in Committee and God knows how many in Strangers Gallery, and I am sure that we could come up with 15 definitions of ''social progress'', which will start from any number of ideological starting points and end up at any number of conclusions. My right hon. Friend Chancellor of the Exchequer has a definition of ''prudent''. It might not accord with everyone's definition or with that of the hon. Member for Cotswold, but it is a definition. How would we 
 define ''prudent'' in the context of sustainable development? What does the phrase 
''high and stable levels of economic growth''
 mean? If one considered the economic performance of various Governments since the turn of the century, one would reach different conclusions, both within and without their context. Even with the greater detail provided by amendment No. 256, we run the risk, to paraphrase Ernest Bevin, of opening a Pandora's box to find all sorts of Trojan horses jumping out of it. I reiterate that we are not in the business of putting fine words in the Bill that can be used to obfuscate, delay or bog down the planning system or anyone's commitment to ensuring that sustainability and sustainable development underpin the planning system.

Sydney Chapman: I have unintentionally misinformed the Committee and done a great injustice to the Minister for Social Exclusion. We all receive briefings from prestigious organisations and one such briefing claimed that, in a speech on Second Reading, the hon. Lady defined sustainable development in terms of stable economic growth. I have now had a chance to read what she said on Second Reading. I was quite wrong, and wish to apologise. For the record, she said:
''Sustainable development does not mean no development, but sustaining high, stable economic growth and employment, social progress, effective protection of the environment and prudent use of resources.''—[Official Report, 17 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 735.]
 I am grateful for the opportunity to place that on the record, and I apologise to the hon. Lady and to the Committee. I must say to the Minister leading the debate today that that is a good definition of sustainable development, which he might consider including in the Bill.

Tony McNulty: Of course it is: it is the Government's definition. However, it does not belong in the Bill for the reasons that I have stated. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, as it means that I have one less slip of paper to consider.
 I understand that the hon. Member for Spelthorne tabled amendment No. 364 to avoid the problem of delay and to give the LPAs and the RPBs a defence and a get-out clause, but it would not work. Amendment No. 359 would make any duty on the RPB and LPA inflexible. The Opposition are facing two ways in trying to struggle with the dilemma. I also accept that the debate is neither partisan nor political.

David Wilshire: What did the Minister mean when he said that my amendment would not work? Does he mean that my attempt will not work, or that the amendment would not work if it were accepted?

Tony McNulty: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's attempt worked. The amendment would not work for reasons that I may explain in more detail.
 None of the formulations relating to sustainable development used in other legislation qualifies the specific duties. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet is right in the sense that nowhere else in legislation is there an attempt to define sustainable development. A range of legislation, such as the Government of Wales Act 1998, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and 
 the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, calls on assorted bodies to have duties in the context of sustainable development, but none actively defines sustainable development. Given the difficulties that we have encountered today, it is right that there should be none, so long as the guidance, the circular and the policy contain a road map to indicate where one should look for a range of policy definitions and terms of sustainable development. I am unaware of that causing any difficulties or problems. 
 Amendment No. 364 is unnecessary because the duty on RPBs and LPAs in clause 38 is to prepare the RSS and LDDs with a view to contributing. It does not place an absolute duty to contribute whatever the circumstances. The documents should therefore be able to withstand challenge so long as the RPB and the LPA have properly demonstrated a positive intention for the RSS or LDDs to contribute. I make no apologies for deliberately seeking a simple formulation for the Bill and providing the opportunity to set out in more detail the definition and matters to be taken into account in guidance, to which I will come later. That is a tried and tested statutory method, and it is the best way of ensuring that sustainable development underpins everything that we do in the planning system. 
 It would be easy for someone to run away from the proceedings or from the broader interpretation of the Bill and say, ''I'm not terribly happy with the statutory duty for sustainable development. Ipso facto: the Government could not care less about sustainable development.'' Nothing could be further from the truth.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I sense that the Minister is preparing to resist our amendments by relying on guidance, which highlights the difficulties that members of the Committee face. The debate might have been much better informed if we had had sight of that draft guidance beforehand. When does the Minister expect to publish draft guidance, when will it be available for inspection and will there be any consultation? Will he simply publish guidance and let that be the end of the matter?

Tony McNulty: That is a tad churlish, given that I provided a detailed sustainable development and planning briefing note and said that although it was not the final guidance that we expected to issue on the subject, it would at least give the Committee an idea of our thinking. It is ever so slightly churlish and unbecoming of the hon. Gentleman to say that we are acting in a vacuum, when I have provided an eight or nine-page route map of guidance. I hope that he will reflect on that.

Huw Edwards: I listened carefully to the Minister. We all accept that fundamental principles such as sustainable development and social inclusion are almost indefinable because they will change over time as social philosophy and attitudes change. Members of the Committee on both sides, and outside organisations, will look for an assertion from the Minister that the Government are, more than any other, committed to sustainable development, and that
 sustainable development will apply across all areas of planning policy.

Tony McNulty: I certainly endorse that, at the risk of being political. That idea underlies entirely parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, which state that any significant planning document must be prepared in the context of sustainable development. There has been more in statute since 1997 to impose duties on public bodies on sustainable development than ever there was before. It might be said that that is contextual because more and more people are ready to accept them, and it remains at the core of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth gets to the heart of the matter: we could enshrine a definition of sustainable development, albeit an ill-defined and limited one—very ill defined if the standard of the debate is anything to go by—and everyone would feel a warm glow. However, progress in sustainable development would mean that such a definition would be limited in two or three years' time.
 Where would that leave us? First, we would be looking for a parliamentary slot to amend primary legislation in order to change once again our definition of sustainable development. It would be better to be responsive and flexible and to issue guidance on which there has been a good deal of consultation. That would enable us to readjust the planning system and make it more flexible. It is better to have that than to have to chunter through another primary legislation process to change the law. That is another reason why we have taken the more straightforward route. 
 The guidance must set out what we mean by how sustainable development can be carried forward in planning—it would be poor guidance if it did not. I assure the Committee that there will be consultation on the guidance. The Bill means that the RPB and the LPA must think positively about sustainable development in the context of the RSS and the LDDs. That is why I resist equally amendment No. 327. 
 Amendment No. 327 would replace the phrase 
''a view to contributing to ''
 with ''regard''. This would, I am reliably informed, soften the duty, not strengthen it. ''Regard'' implies a more neutral process of thinking about the issue without necessarily doing anything positive to promote sustainable development. The wording in the Bill implies a positive duty to promote sustainable development. The phrase ''contributing to'' is important because, after all, a plan of itself cannot achieve sustainable development. It is the actions that flow from the plan that affect sustainable development. The plan sets the framework. Our approach gives the regional planning bodies and the local planning authorities flexibility; it does not prescribe absolute duties. 
 Moreover, as the hon. Member for Monmouth said, sustainable development is evolving and is likely to change over time. It would be far too restrictive if the Government of the day had constantly to return to primary legislation to change its definition. That is why, as the hon. Member for Cotswold hinted, it makes more sense to describe what is meant by sustainable development in guidance. That is the 
 purpose of subsection (3): that in fulfilling their duty, the regional planning body and the local planning authority should have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The guidance will explain what we mean by sustainable development in this context. 
 The note that I issued will not be the final word on the subject; we will issue further guidance in due course, primarily in revisions to PPG1, PPG11 and PPG12. Sustainable development should not be defined in the Bill for the reasons that I have outlined. I am pleased that the Conservative party has endorsed our amendment and the definition of sustainable development set out in the Government's sustainable development strategy. Amendment No. 256 would develop the same objectives and again utilises the wording in our sustainable development strategy. It is good to achieve a good degree of consensus across the Committee in that respect. 
 Having set out our definition and having welcomed the endorsement of Opposition Members, I am not able to accept their amendments because placing a definition directly into the Bill would not be the most effective means of achieving sustainable development. Underpinning the framework of planning legislation in that way would not help. Even when offered our own words and our own definition, I remain resistant to specifying it in the Bill because, fundamentally, it would not be the most appropriate means of achieving our objectives for stable development in the planning context.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Clearly, the timing of the Bill's implementation is important. Officials of various bodies will be considering as we speak how best to draw up their various plans. I ask the Minister once again when he expects the guidance to be published. Will it be concurrent with the Bill receiving Royal Assent?

Tony McNulty: At some stage in our deliberations, I shall attempt to ensure that any guidance is in place before Royal Assent. Secondary legislation is less likely because it follows on from the Bill's becoming an Act. I hope to ensure, as I did for part 1, that any guidance or other supplementary notes will be made available much earlier.
 Amendment No. 225 is a variation of an attempt to define because it places the emphasis on ensuring that suitable land is available. That brings us back to the debate on spatial planning versus simple land use planning. By focusing so specifically on the availability of land, we might constrain—the hon. Member for Spelthorne might like this phrasing—the holistic integrated approach necessary for the regional spatial strategy. It is important to include a spatial dimension, going beyond land use planning. The definition will bite on the original planning body preparing the regional spatial strategy. I would not want an RPB to be challenged on the grounds of a narrow definition ensuring merely that land was available. 
 I have already spoken about the varied effects of amendments Nos. 359 and 364. Amendment No. 226 raises some interesting points, and I agree with the 
 sentiment that a key aspect of sustainable development is integrated economic, social and environmental objectives, but a sustainable plan and framework must already promote such integration. We have long since discussed how RSSs and special planning can work to that end, so the Bill goes a long way towards achieving exactly what the hon. Gentleman wants. 
 Again, however, building the provision into the Bill could cause problems of definition and the amendment's paragraphs (b) and (c) raise questions about the planning process. I agree on the need for transparency, participation, accessibility and accountability, but those principles have been established features of the planning system to varying degrees since 1947 and the Bill is strengthening them through its provisions on a statement of community involvement. 
 On amendment No. 371, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet will forgive me for not going back over the ground in last week's debate about the prudent use of resources. As I made clear then, policy considerations are set out comprehensively in our guidance. MPG1 sets the framework for the present series of 14 mineral planning guidance notes, which aim to secure the extraction of minerals from English sources where needed by the economy and society while retaining the best balance of social, economic and environmental cost. 
 On amendment No. 353, I appreciate the desire to ensure that our aquatic ecosystems and wetlands are protected and enhanced. They are an important environmental asset, already receiving great protection through international designations—Ramsar sites, for example—national designations and the planning system. The amendment is unnecessary. Any consideration of sustainable development must involve weighing all relevant environmental, natural resource, economic and social factors, including the need to protect nationally important ecosystems, aquatic or otherwise. PPG9 on nature conservation covers the issues from a planning perspective, and we are currently reviewing it. 
 I shall finish by summing up the Government's views on sustainable development and planning, but I do not want to do so at length. The four reasons suggested in the amendment are at the core of what we do, and I have mentioned that existing guidance places an important emphasis on sustainable development. For example, PPG1 states that sustainable development seeks to deliver, now and in the future, the objective of economic development to secure higher living standards while protecting and enhancing the environment. 
 PPG1 goes on to say that to deliver sustainable outcomes, planning should 
''provide for the nation's needs for commercial and industrial development, food production, minerals extraction, new homes and other buildings, while respecting environmental objectives; use already developed areas in the most efficient way; . . . conserve both the cultural heritage and natural resources; . . . and shape new development patterns in a way which minimises the need to travel.''
 Existing PPGs and MPGs already promote those objectives in specific policy areas. There is a longer list 
 in the briefing that I sent out, but examples include PPG3 on housing, PPG6 on town centres and retail development, PPG10 on planning and waste management, PPG14 on development of unstable land, PPG23 on planning and pollution control and PPG25 on development and flood risk. I have already mentioned the MPGs. 
 At regional level, regional sustainable development frameworks prepared under the UK strategy set out a vision of sustainable development in each region and the region's contribution to sustainable development at the national level. They are agreed by a wide range of stakeholders, including the regional chambers, RDAs, local government and the voluntary sector. They define sustainable development objectives and set priorities using regional indicators and targets. PPG11 already advises regional planning bodies and other regional stakeholders to have regard to the objectives set out in the regional sustainable development framework in drawing up regional planning guidance and in undertaking a sustainability appraisal of proposed policies. The Bill enshrines that policy in the RSS proposals, including the sustainability appraisal, so we have much more than simply a definition. 
 At local level, PPG12 sets out how sustainable development considerations can be addressed in local plans. I draw the Committee's attention in particular to paragraph 4.4 of PPG12, which provides a comprehensive list of environmental considerations for development plans. As I said earlier—it seems an awful long time ago—PPG12 will be revised and updated in the context of parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. Finally, I should remind the Committee of the Bill's requirement for a sustainability appraisal, which we have discussed. 
 We have debated the clause at some length, which is appropriate as it is an important clause that goes to the heart of planning in the future. However, I emphasise that I do not want anyone to go away with the notion that sustainable development is not at the core of what we do in planning in the future simply because the Bill does not include some elaborate, fancy and verbose, but ultimately flawed, definition of sustainability that is limited and open to huge challenges, as any definition would be. The best way to guide in that direction in the clause is through a simple formulation, and guidance can and will discuss the detailed definitions. 
 If we are serious about sustainable development, the hon. Gentleman should withdraw his amendment and the others, even those that are wonderfully written and fully use the Government's definition, should not be moved.

David Wilshire: I am grateful to the Minister. I listened with care to his comments, and I think that he has persuaded me of a lot of things. However, I am not sure whether we have made as much progress as we need to make before we leave the issue.
 The Minister started by saying that the concepts were ill defined. He did not mean that as a criticism of anyone, and I agree that they are. He also said that he had not yet seen a definitive definition that would be challenge free. That worries me, because whether or not we accept his argument to include a definition in 
 guidance rather than in the Bill, we will be trying to define what we mean at some point. That is exactly the argument that my hon. Friends and I advanced, and the Minister seemed to accept that guidance would be the better way of working. 
 Guidance notes produced by the Government are relevant documents, and there is a good collection of court cases to say that guidance notes should be considered in determining whether it was correct to process an application in a certain way. The Minister says that he has not seen anything yet that is challenge free. He then says that he will do it in guidance. He almost admits that this will be challengeable even in guidance. I fear that that will be so, because these are ideological and subjective matters, and are forever changing. They will certainly be challenged. To quote the Minister, they go to the heart of the Bill. 
 I am not being churlish. The Minister has been helpful with information, but because this is so fundamental, even those guidance notes, if that is the way he wants to do it, ought to be the subject of parliamentary scrutiny in the same way as a Bill would be. Therefore I would press him, if I may, to contemplate whether he could bring forward more information, as he has done in the past, for which I am grateful. If there is more information by Report stage about what the guidance notes may say and what they may seek to do by way of definition, we can take this debate forward. 
 As the Minister rightly says, no hon. Member in this Committee or in the House will argue against the concept—although we certainly may disagree with the Government's definition. As the definition starts to become available, if it is not to be in the Bill, it would be enormously helpful if we could at least have a draft of it as quickly as possible. Alternatively, if it does not become available as the Bill goes through its parliamentary process, would the Minister give some thought as to whether the usual channels will be invited to find some opportunity, on the Floor of the House or somewhere else, to discuss those guidance notes so that we can get to the heart of the Bill? I would not argue that it might not be better to do that. That is the part of the argument that I will accept, provided that the Minister can reassure us that we can get to grips with the guidance notes later if we cannot get to grips with them here. 
 I fear that we will simply duck the issue now because it is too hard, and that the guidance notes will not get us any further. That is not a party political point. A Conservative Government would struggle just as much to put the definition into words that are not challengeable. I invite the Minister to contemplate whether he can produce something that we can debate on Report, or that the other place can debate and if necessary we can come back to, or whether time can be found for us to get to grips with something that is right at the heart of the planning process and the sort of society that individuals want to build.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We have had a long and important debate on this subject. I make no apology for tabling the amendments and for the length of the
 debate. However, I have changed my mind. When I drafted some of the amendments I felt that it would be wise to try to put a definition in the Bill. Having listened to the debate and participated in it, I believe that that is difficult, not because these are what my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne calls ill defined concepts, but because they are difficult to define concepts. The fact that they are difficult to define is no reason for not putting them in the Bill; the real reason is that they are evolving concepts. In that context it is better, although I dislike it, to put the details into guidance, because it is easier to revise guidance than primary legislation.
 This has been a wide-ranging debate. I should like to think that the Minister would be able to incorporate some of the feelings of members of the Committee into the guidance when he produces it, and that this debate will have informed what eventually appears. Although I thank the Minister very much for the helpful note that he produced, in general it is helpful for the Committee to have a copy of draft guidance when debate such matters. That is the way in which the House used to work. If we are proceeding at such a pace that the Minister and his officials cannot produce that draft guidance in time for discussions in Committee, why have the Government's business managers timetabled and scheduled the Bill in that way? 
 We still have a long way to go. A lot of guidance will still be discussed under various other parts of the Bill, and I urge the Minister that we should see a copy of the draft guidance in good time before then. Having said that, I must add that the debate has been useful and well informed. The Minister is right; it is probably best to deal with the definition in guidance. Having heard the Minister's helpful and lengthy explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 384, in
clause 38, page 20, line 31, at end insert— 
 '( ) under Part 3 in relation to Simplified Planning Zones'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 325, in
clause 38, page 20, line 33, at end insert— 
 '( ) under Part 4 in relation to development control.'.{**W3**} 
No. 326, in 
clause 38, page 20, line 33, at end insert— 
 '( ) under Part 7 in relation to compulsory purchase.'.{**W3**} 
No. 370, in 
clause 38, page 20, line 34, leave out from 'function' to end of line 35 and insert— 
 '(a) with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development; and 
 (b) in Wales, so as to secure compliance with the requirements of the scheme made under section 121 of the Government of Wales Act 1998.'.
 Before I call Mr. Green I should inform Members that because of an error at the press, amendment No. 384 has not been printed correctly on the amendment paper. It should read 
''under Part 4 in relation to Simplified Planning Zones'',{**W4**} 
not ''under part 3''.

Tony McNulty: That saves my point of order.

Matthew Green: It also saves my face, Mr. Amess. To begin my speech by explaining that the amendment was wrong would have been difficult.
 The amendment is important, and the Government may be able to find some area of agreement with me. I have looked at the various aspects of the Bill, and it is clear that the sustainable development duty applies to the identification in the regional spatial strategy of the need for a simplified planning zone. That provision is covered in subsection (1)(a), but it does not appear to apply to the subsequent consideration by the local planning authority of whether a simplified planning zone in that area is desirable. 
 The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that point. It is an attempt to ensure that sustainable development is a consideration for local planning authorities in this instance, as that does not appear to be included. It would also cover the Secretary of State's default powers, which are provided for in clause 44(8), which relates to SPZs. 
 The Secretary of State's powers in section 87(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to require environmental assessment, where necessary, under European legislation, will remain available. However, the clause should be made more explicit, and not just rely on the 1990 Act. Given the Minister's statements on the previous group of amendments during the lengthy and necessary debates on this clause, I would have thought that he would try to make the clause especially explicit. 
 One reason to do that is that on Second Reading the Minister for Social Exclusion said about the simplified planning zones: 
''The zones will not be a free-for-all, but will adhere to strict approval criteria set out in guidance and be subject to an environmental impact assessment.''—[Official Report, 17 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 737.]
 Therefore, the Government clearly intend to ensure that sustainable development is included in simplified planning zones. However, the amendment would remove a slight hole in the Bill—or perhaps the Minister will propose a more appropriate way to deal with that hole. I would welcome his thoughts on that. 
 The other three amendments are Conservative amendments. They may be covered, but I remain to be convinced, either by the Conservatives or by the Minister, whether they are necessary or otherwise. I wish to see proposed new subsection (4) of clause 38 accepted, or to hear a strong argument about how the Minister will deal with the hole in the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I suspect that with the best will in the world, I shall not be able to conclude what I wish to say in the minute or so that is available to me. The amendments—
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.